Pretty disgusted with this writing and animal cruelty at times. I just had to leave an undead cat that was guarding her owner (which I teleported back to the ship). I can't even tell the cat where her owner has gone? I can't bring the cat with me? A few other things.
-Why can't we save source hound Emmie?
-What's the purpose of even putting that orphaned bear cub in the game?
-Why would a sadistic sociopath like Rhyker have pets? Which invariably you can't do a thing to help once you slay the man.

Why is this game like this? In every other regard I will give DOS2 a 9 or 10 out of 10. The first Divinity Original Sin wasn't like this. That game was incredibly charming. I never got the impression that there were glaring disconnects between story elements regarding animals or just quests in general. Sure it was really dark in areas, as this game is, which is necessary, which we love and respect you for. Please don't take this as objection to grimness in games. Thing is these story omissions and useless inclusions involving animals aren't grim, they are uncomfortable, juvenile and lazy. DOS2 for all of it's amazing writing, has a myriad of these glaring omissions. It doesn't feel good leaving an undead cat, which has been standing watch over it's owner for god knows how long, and when you rescue it's owner, you are WITHOUT the ability to EVEN inform the bloody thing as to what has occurred. Is this just negligence or is one of your writers some kind of deviant personality? Don't !@!# up Dos3 like this. I love you guys, I really do. I love this game. I want some of these story elements patched and I definitely don't want stuff like this in DOS 3.

People dies and gets tortured like there's no tomorrow in the game, but you're worried about undead cats.
Seems like cherrypicking to me.

A number of people have commented that there aren't too many happy endings for the animals. I did feel particularly sorry for the very loyal and long-dead cat, though I also felt sad for Buddy and Emmie. There were a few other examples, too. Although I understand that OS2 is a bit darker than previous Divinity games, I'd still like a few more happy endings.

Seems to me you don't understand the fact animal suffering isn't conducive to enjoyment in video games. Fairly straight forward to most. You haven't picked up on the trend of resentment? Seems like a you issue "BowFunes".

I sincerely enjoy the darkness of this game. I understand it as you play this from the perspective of a Sourcerer as opposed to a Source Hunter. It's the quantity of "feel bad" story elements pet pal has to offer. The bear cub is pointless, there is absolutely no reason to take pet pal in Fort Joy, unless you want to feel like sh*t; well I guess you can save Birdie, but Emmie and Buddy, that just sucks. I can tell the bear cub was originally part of a larger quest that they just decided to scrap. But they decided to keep the cub orphan in because I dunno? Are they trying to be edgy? I cough up the undead cat and her owner as just lazy writing. The fact you can't bring the cat with you or even inform it as to what happened is foolish. I played DOS1 4 times and I enjoyed every second of it. If I give DOS2 another go, it will be without pet pal. I can get the same feeling pet pal has to offer from watching those animal charity videos. Thank you for your contribution to my thread Vometia.

But you see, you're just picking the parts convenient for your argument. What about the flaming pigs? Those can be saved from their torment, even when they're people transformed, the same with the cows in Driftwood, but you chose to ignore them. You can help the rat with the "truthful" curse and she's grateful for it. You can save Birdie from a terrible fate. You can save the chicken's egg...

I've encountered hundreds of dead bodies, most of them killed by voidwoken, but they don't seem to bother you (not even the Shriekers, which are basically infinite torture).
It's natural for an evil force of destruction to leave a wave of death behind it - in fact, the turtles in the beach actually tells you that they're being corrupted from the inside, just like many people out there. You just want to be offended by the logical outcome of it.

It's a darker game than before, even when the story is beyond stupid with the CHOSENONE!!! theme, and I like it.

Yes, and I can reciprocal your pointless post. You have cherry picked the small amount of times there can be a happy ending for helpless creatures. Not effectively either, as those flaming pigs and cows were polymorphed humans. The 3 or so incidences of favorable conclusions (for animals) due to pet pal, are vastly overshadowed. I also presented the concern that this is due to dysfunctional story elements. Do you think it's practical or realistic for some weird stray cat to attach itself to your toon at the beginning of the game? And of course these professional soldiers will kill it on site for...reasons? If you can have this weird cat as a pet, what's the logical barrier to having a bear cub as one? Are you justifying the inability to INFORM a cursed cat that her owner she has been guarding over, has been saved? What's the purpose of that unreasonably high attribute check for this dead cat anyway? Thx to Larian writers all you can do is leave the thing wondering and crying in the dark even after successful completion of the attribute check; and don't bother saying for the privilege of speaking to the bound girl, my ranger can 1 shot this poor thing for that privilege (might as well!). Are you justifying the fact Emmie's quest can be bugged if you kill that Kniles guy first, meaning the fact you do have that red ball gets glitched, you will have to just kill her anyway? Do you think giving some Source Hounds a red ball to play with is a satisfying conclusion (when it doesn't bug)? Do you think it's reasonable a dog who has been companions with Buddy for years, gets so utterly brainwashed within the span of a few days or weeks? What's the point of introducing the orphaned bear cub if you can only say "screw you bear, just go eat berries". Is that satisfying to you? This is a game right, do you get enjoyment from that? What's the actual concern over what I'm saying Bowfunes? I reiterate, your "cherry picking" assertion is weak. And don't get me started on your dead bodies statement. Why would I or anybody else have an issue with dead bodies in a video game predicated on war and dark magic? Why did you bring up shriekers? I kill the shriekers, it's a story element with a logical basis that can be concluded in an appropriate manner. I free them from their torment, I kill them because they try to kill me, and I kill the magisters responsible for commissioning such a disgusting piece of ordinance. The shrieker story element is functional and satisfying, I enjoy it immensely.

"It's natural for an evil force of destruction to leave a wave of death behind it - in fact, the turtles in the beach actually tells you that they're being corrupted from the inside, just like many people out there. You just want to be offended by the logical outcome of it." I don't care if you're fine with it, I don't like it and pet pal is in no way shape or form as satisfying as it's first iteration in the previous game. This is my opinion and I've seen it echoed A LOT in forums. The story elements surrounding pet pal are depressing, dysfunctional and regularly pointless. That is the problem I'm illustrating Bowfunes; stop trying to conflate my position with a sensitivity to grimness or dark story elements. The "CHOOSE NO ONE" (<----corrected), story arch that you characterize as stupid, I find great. This is a dark game and you are meant to make tough choices, I think the fact ur god latches on to you and acts petty in many ways, and can be defied by you, is extremely interesting. How is that stupid? This game does so much right, it makes the story elements and dysfunction surrounding Pet Pal a real shame.

This needs to become sticky

Thank you Try2Harding. I love Larian and DOS. I want to see small change for DOS2 and I don't want anything to get in the way of our enjoyment of DOS 3 in the future.

First of all, please try to separate that wall of text becase it's imposible to read.

Now, on to the subject: you say my cherry picking assertion is weak, yet I came up with more examples of happy endings than you of gruesome ones. Not to mention, you conveniently ignored the fact that the cruelty against people is everywhere yet it doesn't seem to bother you, justifying it with "it's part of the storyline". Well, the deaths of animals is too, why is that wrong and the other not? I found tons of examples of people who I had no choice but to put them out of their misery, either because they were near death, or they were cursed somehow. Hey, but they're not animals so it's ok, right?
Does this means I'm ok with animal cruelty? Of course not. What I'm saying is that the tone of game is grim, in every ocassion, and it wouldn't be consistent if everyone's dying but the animals. Even the kids are dying, sometimes in horrible ways - but that doesn't bother you either.

And yes, at times some quests seem to be unfinished, but again, it happens with many different situations. You, of course, only complained about the ones involving animals. Not a single word of doubt about the fate of Migo or what happened with Mona, to give some quick examples.

And I did meant "CHOSEN ONE", I put it all together because I heard it so many times in fiction by now that it's just ridiculous. It's so vastly present in every game nowadays, and it's obviously catering to the modern playerbase that needs to feel special. World of Warcraft is the classic example of this, and I wouldn't be surprised if Larian actually took that model to compete in the market.
Funny enough, DOS1 had a similar story, but at least your characters could react in non cooperative ways about it, instead of the nose dragging that is DOS2. It seems that, regardless of what I do, I always end up right n the main NPC doorsteps and have no other choice but to obey them.

I like the game, even when I consider it a huge stepback from the first Original Sin. I pointed many flawys in a thread of my own, but this one is just the typical crying for attention from "sensible" people. And I put that on quotes because that sensibility seems to be reserved for specific living beings. In fact, the darker tone of the game is one of the strong points, and removing it will make a half finished game even more crappy.

Have a nice day.

This concept of the chosen one kind of kills what probably most hoped about this game: playing with friends to achieve the same goal. In the first game both were chosen, now only one?

Also in the first game you could revisit old places, now every act makes a huge cut, wich also kind inforces the need to cut ropes from old quests.

"First of all, please try to separate that wall of text becase it's imposible to read."
-Lol. Others seem to be just fine reading what I wrote. What are you complaining about? The fact I elected not to use paragraph/essay format for a post on a game forum? What's more concerning is your grammar, spelling and sentence structure. Just look at the very first sentence of your response. Try high school again.

"Now, on to the subject: you say my cherry picking assertion is weak, yet I came up with more examples of happy endings than you of gruesome ones. "
-No you didn't you mentioned chicken eggs and a rat that had a truth telling problem. You are absurd. Every few quests there is a new incidence of animal suffering. Which is fine. If you care to notice I am not complaining about the option to sacrifice all the animals of the forest for 1 source point from Hannag. It makes sense, it's a functional story element, you can even elect not to. The stray cat, the undead cats, the bear cub, Buddy and Emmie; it's a common theme many have picked up on. These are glitched, unfinished, unsatisfying & nonsensical. That is the issue. I hope you finally understand.

"Not to mention, you conveniently ignored the fact that the cruelty against people is everywhere yet it doesn't seem to bother you, justifying it with "it's part of the storyline". Well, the deaths of animals is too, why is that wrong and the other not."
-Are you serious? You're doing this thing again?
-I'm talking about a trend of uncomfortable animal suffering surrounded by dysfunctional story elements and game bugs.
-I'm not talking about human suffering, again, stop conflating my point with an aversion to violence and grim story telling. Why would I or anyone else show concern at incidences of sacrifice or death in a game predicated on war and dark magic. On the other hand, what is the point of a professional soldier targeting and killing a stray cat that's following you? Which of course you can't even address in a conversation after the fact. Why are you imposing your lack of comprehension and overt pointlessness on my simple position?

"Does this means I'm ok with animal cruelty? Of course not. What I'm saying is that the tone of game is grim, in every ocassion, and it wouldn't be consistent if everyone's dying but the animals"
-I don't have to address this again, just wanted to correct you. It's "Occasion". Oh, and I guess you are also opposed to a rework of the bear cub interaction, so clearly you got some satisfaction from that useless conversation and attribute check (there was an attribute check right? I believe there was.).

"And yes, at times some quests seem to be unfinished, but again, it happens with many different situations. You, of course, only complained about the ones involving animals. Not a single word of doubt about the fate of Migo or what happened with Mona, to give some quick examples."
-This was a short quest with completely functional story elements. I killed Migo with a smile on my face, you found out that magister woman was Migo's daughter. And I'm sure if I passed the attribute check and was so inclined, I could have taken an alternate route to killing the guy. The magisters turned him into a ghoul if I remember correctly. I killed the magister daughter too for giggles. They are a corrupt military force. Again, no one in their right mind would complain about death in a game. I haven't seen one complaint about an "unfinished Migo" quest on forums...keep reaching. Isn't Mona that diseased necro vendor in Fort Joy? Why would I care about that? She's a diseased necromancer. Sure a little backstory would be fine, but all she is is a vendor. Mona has no attribute check or significant dialogue. I'm not randomly teleporting Mona's daughter away with no dialogue progression after the fact. How is that comparable to the conversation with the undead cat in Blood Island?

"And I did meant "CHOSEN ONE", I put it all together because I heard it so many times in fiction by now that it's just ridiculous. It's so vastly present in every game nowadays, and it's obviously catering to the modern playerbase that needs to feel special. World of Warcraft is the classic example of this, and I wouldn't be surprised if Larian actually took that model to compete in the market.
Funny enough, DOS1 had a similar story, but at least your characters could react in non cooperative ways about it, instead of the nose dragging that is DOS2. It seems that, regardless of what I do, I always end up right n the main NPC doorsteps and have no other choice but to obey them."
-You wrote one long misspelled word, it's not incumbent on me to decipher "Chosen one" from what you wrote.

"I like the game, even when I consider it a huge stepback from the first Original Sin. I pointed many flawys in a thread of my own, but this one is just the typical crying for attention from "sensible" people. And I put that on quotes because that sensibility seems to be reserved for specific living beings. In fact, the darker tone of the game is one of the strong points, and removing it will make a half finished game even more crappy."
-You have the nerve to call myself and all the others who have complained about the pet pal experience in this game, as wanting to remove the darkness from it? You are the one calling DOS2 a big step back from DOS1, a half finished and crappy game...and I'm the one crying for attention from "sensible" people? So is that your game? You just think DOS2 is half finished and that's that? So hopeful fans like myself who have feedback & criticism should just shut up. Because you think these half finished and weird interactions with unfortunate animals are what gives DOS a "darker tone". And this darker tone is DOS2's only strong point. Bravo dude. My girlfriend (big Final Fantasy fan) and I played DOS1 together and we had a blast. She started watching me play this, decided to stop watching; as a matter of fact she thinks I'm weird for continuing to play it. There IS a problem.

I can kind of understand why they went down this route though eh? Ummm. I saw an interview one of the devs did with Angry Joe. Seemed like they wanted to create incentive for people playing co-op to troll each other and compete. I can kind of also understand it from the perspective that you can elect to play as a power hungry sourcerer, as opposed to a stalwart team player. Here is the link if u'r interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63-ws3_jhx0

As for your concern about them partitioning the land between the different acts. I totally share it dude, I really dislike the fact you can't visit old areas. It makes the game world feel less alive and more gimmicky. I could understand why you couldn't revisit Fort Joy, but I was disappointed to see the trend continue. Now that you mention it that's probably my other major concern; after of course the half-baked and uncomfortable pet pal experience. That being said this game does a lot right doesn't it? I think the spells are a lot better. The rework to summoning in relation to DOS 1 was definitely needed. I love picking new races. I think the armour system is interesting. I'm having trouble making crazy weird builds like I did the first game (I played some robe wearing Fire Knight), but so far the Death Knight I looked up is pretty fun.

"Doesn't feel good" is exactly the point of a tragic story. It's supposed to make you feel sad. I don't think every storyline should have many outcomes because that takes away from the tragic nature of it. Too much choice can water down the story. I agree that there are situations where obvious dialog choices are missing. The writers should try to get to the desired outcome without omitting certain obvious things, but by other plot tools.

There is cruelty against all species in this game, not just animals btw.

Another "not just" argument? I'm well aware and never eluded otherwise. The issue is the missing story elements, bugs, and serial lack of favorable outcomes for animals. As you said "obvious dialog choices are missing" and it gets annoying being confronted by it every hour or two down the narrative. Are you justifying the lack of dialogue progression with the undead cat guardian after saving the girl? Are you justifying the KOS for the stray cat first thing in the game? Does that make sense to you? How about that necromancer dog (that wants to take over the world?) that you have to kill. Is all this necessary for a tragic story line? Hint: It's not. I can honestly say this is the first time in a game I had to slay an evil wizard dog, I thought it was silly and just part of a larger trend. Like I said earlier, that part with Hannag where you can sacrifice all the animals in the forest made sense, I wouldn't go down that route but I don't have an issue with it. That part of the plot didn't feel half baked, didn't feel like it had missing dialogue choices or other plot device options. The bear cub on the other hand, I can tell that was part of a larger quest they just decided to keep in there; just a real buzz kill.

I find your blocks of text hard to read too. Try to break your paragraphs out a bit or people will just give up.

Anyway I sort of agree - it is a shame you can do nothing with the cat. You can't do anything with the girl either though which is also a shame.

So is your point animals should be treated better than people (lets assume Humans, Elves etc are all people) or the same? If you think animals are treated worse then I disagree. They aren't.

The only difference is children being immortal because of odd legal issues about killing children in video games in some countries (apparently). Otherwise both animals and people have bad outcomes sometimes.

If you think all animals should live happily ever after then wait for the last forest tiger. That will definitely annoy you.

Then you should get your eyes checked, I don't do essay format in game forums. First of all no, the story elements surrounding all human based quests are fleshed out. U randomly developed the ability to teleport ppl to ur boat for her, she's safe, the cat on the other hand u can't even inform as to what happened. I never once got the impression that they just gave up on a quest arc half way through with helpless ppl u encounter in DOS, there's an appropriate amount of choice for normative story quests I find. And just in general, my gf and I preferred killing orcs in DOS1 to dogs in DOS2...weird right? She calls this game the "prepubescent serial killer simulator". Give me an event in game that's as frustrating as the missing dialogue for the undead cat or the bear cub orphan with human based quests. Or as weird as the KOS for the stray cat. Everything to do with pet pal in this game is half baked and unsatisfying, few exceptions of course, but that's the trend.
DOS1 content surrounding pet pal was much more satisfying. Also, while u are it, give me a quote of mine that would support ur assertion I only want happy endings for animals. I'll wait.

There can never be too many choices in a video game.

And really, writing is like art. Just have to respect the writers artistic vision.

I did really want to save the cat though.. I put it out of it's misery because I didn't want it to suffer in a hole alone. Am I a bad person? I feel guilty.

I ended up doing the same thing. And u are not alone in ur sentiment. The contrarian neck beards are coming out for me but if you google it, forums will pop up complaining about it.

I agree about some missing dialog. That's a different issue from missing "favorable outcomes", which is a matter of taste. Game writers have to strike a balance between giving choices of outcomes and preserving the tone of the story line. If you always had choice for all possible outcomes for every mini story, that would dilute the dark feel of the game, which is intentional. You're probably right that it's much different from DOS1, and DOS2 may not be right for you.


The lack of additional dialog, sure I'll give you that. But you also said you wish you could take the cute undead cat back to the ship, and cuddle it and give it all your love, etc etc. Setting aside the logistics of what you want, if we take that to an extreme, maybe we should take all undead or otherwise suffering creatures, of ANY species, from all side quests, back to the ship and take care of them. I met a group of talking fire slugs in a cave that were cursed by some bad guy and got brainwashed. Should we take them with us?


This one is easy. Yes! Absolutely. It's justified as being part of the story. The killing of that cat by the magisters serves to show their vile nature, and it also shows that not everything is under your control. For me that was an eye-opening moment which started to set the mood and tone for the rest of the game for me. That instance served its purpose well, as a plot tool.

Now, if you're asking whether killing a cat on sight is morally justified, in a general sense, the answer is obviously not, but I don't think that's what you were asking here. You just seem to hate the fact that it's in the game, and how it made you feel, which is the whole point of having that scene in the game. The writers rely on the fact that most players are decent kitty-loving people who will feel sad when they see that. To a large extent this game is about wrongdoing, evil, feeling helpless, and that bad things happen, etc. If you can't handle these things, again, this game is clearly not for you.

And when I first watched the movie Cujo, I can honestly say that was the first time in a movie I saw a rabid dog go on a killing frenzy. Was it necessary to make a horror movie about a frenzied dog viciously killing people? I'll let you answer that yourself, but obviously that's not a movie for everyone.

Overall, I haven't really seen more violence or cruelty perpetrated on animals compared to people in the game, so I wouldn't say the game goes out of its way to make animals suffer, exclusively. It doesn't discriminate much. This is coming from someone who loves animals and who's had cats most of my life. I felt sad to see the black cat get killed, and that was the point.

Good discussion!

"I agree about some missing dialog. That's a different issue from missing "favorable outcomes", which is a matter of taste. Game writers have to strike a balance between giving choices of outcomes and preserving the tone of the story line. If you always had choice for all possible outcomes for every mini story, that would dilute the dark feel of the game, which is intentional. You're probably right that it's much different from DOS1, and DOS2 may not be right for you"
-Yeh I do find the constant animal suffering distasteful, like I said earlier my gf won't play this with me and we loved DOS1. Favorable outcomes are a matter of taste, for sure. I just think a lot of these pet pal interactions go no where and are just there to give you a cheap tug on the heart strings. I think Larian is better than this. The first game accomplished grimness without this. Ultimately yeh, I'm prob not going to give this game another play through when I finish. Again, I'm totally fine with unfavourable outcomes for certain pet pal quests. It just seems like Larian relied on these situations again and again as the story progressed. They didn't last time, why this time? And the lack of dialogue progression and quest choice (the feeling this was a quest that was removed for whatever reason) in certain situations is what annoyed me the most.

"The lack of additional dialog, sure I'll give you that. But you also said you wish you could take the cute undead cat back to the ship, and cuddle it and give it all your love, etc etc. Setting aside the logistics of what you want, if we take that to an extreme, maybe we should take all undead or otherwise suffering creatures, of ANY species, from all side quests, back to the ship and take care of them. I met a group of talking fire slugs in a cave that were cursed by some bad guy and got brainwashed. Should we take them with us?"
-This is foolish. My quam with this situation is the dialogue disconnect. Logistics? Of what? Carrying a cat? You developed the ability to teleport a possessed girl to a boat out of thin air. Why not bring a long her undead guardian and life long friend? Why not allow us to TELL the thing what happened. How is this particular situation relatable to undeads you see in the world? The fire slugs had a little society in their cave. There were no orphaned fire slug youths crying about their mother after you decided to teleport it to the white house or something equally ludicrous. You speak out of context and it's annoying.

"This one is easy. Yes! Absolutely. It's justified as being part of the story. The killing of that cat by the magisters serves to show their vile nature, and it also shows that not everything is under your control. For me that was an eye-opening moment which started to set the mood for the rest of the game for me. That instance served its purpose well, as a plot tool."
-Ok. I thought it was moronic. Why would the magisters have a KOS order on black cats? It was more than just one magister that would attack the thing right? Are they telepathic? Must have been some KOS order right? I was also annoyed that I couldn't bring up the fact some soldier randomly attacked an animal that was following me in dialogue. And of course, hopeless Emmie is right around the corner. Just part of a larger trend in DOS2. I will concede that seeing the prick shoot my new cat made skull f@#king him more satisfying when I got around to it. But still, it's just strange man.

"And when I first watched the movie Cujo, I can honestly say that was the first time in a movie I saw a rabid dog go on a killing frenzy. Was it necessary to make a horror movie about a frenzied dog viciously killing people? I'll let you answer that yourself, but obviously that's not a movie for everyone. "
-Was Cujo a wizard? Is this high caliber story by your estimation? When's the last time you killed this many dogs or listened to their sob stories in a video game? I get the impression u understand my point and are at least in partial agreement. Thank you for not conflating my position with an aversion to violence or an atmosphere of despair in general.

Yup, Good Discussion, in parts anyway.
Cheers

Yea, good discussion, except you REALLY should tone down your hostility toward others in this forum, who are only expressing their opinions, while you are making this personal. Your frequent insults are getting quite irritating and the forum moderators should keep an eye on this.

Lol. I'm an accountant at year end, shoot me. But yeh I guess I'm being heated. I've said what I've had to, I'll leave the progression of this topic to the rest of the community.

Giving more options to troll or compete is fine. But the way they made it, they killed the coop-feeling you had from the first games. There are no interactive dialogs like in the first. One guy talks and all others can only listen, pushing them into passive roles if you want to play coop.

If Player A talks to an NPC and Player B does it afterwards, it is as if the Player A talking never happened. From some events you therefore can 'earn' rewards with every character seperatly like the thirsty corpse in the well. In the first game it felt like you were two soulmates fates to travel on together, now you just feel like up to four random dudes, following the same path by accident. Also in the end you still get forced to fight each other anyway. I already saw the Angry Joe video long time ago and it made me worry if I remember correctly, but sadly it kind of got even worse than expected. Not shared exp and not shared social skills just shove into your face, that you are not really a 'group'.

Honestly I expected something like the first game, after you escaped the prison island. Hearing that it won't be that way, just is extremely disappointing. There are so many flaws to the combat system regarding balance and progress my friend and I ever never really bothered to play that far. The armor system kills all the crazy and/or controll oriented builts. The only thing that really matters is pure damage now. Attributes lost all their depth and same goes for skill trees. Requirements for high level skills are so low, that there is no need for real investment, instead you will invest in Skills like Warfare or Polymorph, even if you don't need their skills, just because their will offer a better general damage boost instead of a specific one.

Regarding summoning I'm not sure. I love my summoning as a support with witch craft, though in late game summons lost their importance and this is not really different in the second game, excluding lone wolf probably. Also being a summoner but being able to handle only one summon at the time like everyone else, that really sucks.

Regarding races: undeads are awesome though probably overpowered, elves are irritating but still kind of cool, but all other races feel extremely lacking and unspecial. Also why are normal spells from first game now racial skills and even so kind of weaker versions of those? Same goes to the fact, that some skills from the first game now need source, which I find very irritating.

In general speaking: there are some cool ideas, but in the end most stuff feels half baked and lacking and core issues from the first game like inventory management did not see improvement at all.

P. S.: In the first game you got a real feeling for getting more and more powerful overtime. In this game it lacks, you already get that feeling at the start. Bigger numbers is not enough to feel yourself really more powerful.

Quite. A gentle reminder to everybody to keep it polite and friendly, please.

On the upside, the devs will certainly take notice of all this feedback, which is a good thing
We all feel strongly about certain things, and we can have lively discussions, while keeping things civil.

I say Larian should keep the cute animals alive and well, and kill off the ugly ones. There, problem solved.

I take it you don't eat any kind of meat IRL at all? Cause it would be quite ironic if you got your tidy whities in a bunch over a virtual undead cat and then eaten a real animal for Xmas dinner.

But those don't count right? Unless it's cute, it's food. That's why there's no mention of cows or pigs.

P.S.: feel feel to analyse and criticise my "grammar, spelling and sentence structure".

Not gonna lie, I kinda gave up on this fella. He points my grammar mistakes when I'm doing my best to write in a language that isn't mine and conveniently avoids my "wall of text" complain, which is more than acceptable. He constantly avoids discussions about cruelty towards people. He can't even make a point without acting like a douchebag.
For some reason he likes to forget every situation in which animals actually gets saved, like the Void Touched Deer in Driftwood which you can take down and save the other three - that didn't happened it seems.

I'll just leave him to cry over some pixelated animals. OMG THERE'S A MISSING DIALOG REGARDING A RANDOM BEAR CUB, CALL THE INTERNET POLICE.

Too much Disney destroyed his mind, lol.

Seriously, guys, play nice. Discuss the subject, not other forum members.

lol
Well, the entire game is pixels. That doesn't mean you feel nothing when you play it (I hope). How do you feel about movies? Those are pixelated too

I think the OP's main point (other than getting a little personal with you) is that some of the sad scenes involving animals feel pointless to him, and they serve no purpose in the story.
I think the point is that it's a cruel world full of tragedy, where sad things just happen, and there isn't always a reason - exactly what happens in reality. There isn't much you can do about a sad orphaned bear cub, and that's precisely the point. There isn't much you can do about someone else pointlessly killing a cute kitten. That's the point. But it's not just animals - humans and other species also get killed in the game for no good reason.

I think the writers aim to evoke certain emotions, and to stimulate your senses, which IMO they've done effectively for the most part. It's a very 'grown-up' game, much more so than the first one.

I agree with this. Never played Dos1, but I found that the involvement of animals in DoS2 to be interesting and an enjoyable aspect of the game. There were a few events that I wished I could have done more, but for every animal event that turned out that way for me, there were 3 human events of a similar note. As I am human first and foremost, I found those to be far more impacting.

On the note of unfinished story arcs, I do agree. I would have enjoyed a bit more reach on some of them. Like the dog's in the prison...throwing a ball and were done. Would have loved to get the two dog's back together and perhaps even see them later on in the storyline.

Something for the Dev's to think about for improvements in the game. There are animal lovers out there who would like to see conclusion and continuance in some of the animal stories as well.

I would assume that they didn't push to far with the animals due to not knowing how much the playerbase would like/dislike the focus. That could be a good question to further drive this topic (and keep it positive): How much would those replying like to see more in depth animal questlines in the game? something to carry on into multiple acts, perhaps even some animal companion storylines that could play out much like the origin quests?

I have also noticed there seems to be a fair amount of bad stuff happening to animals in the game. I mean, the first time you get to use pet pal is on the dog on the boat with you and there's nothing you can do for the poor scared dog, and the dialogue actually has an option for killing it.

The black cat and buddy were both refreshing uses of pet pal after the first impression you get with it, and the crab on the beach was also relatively light-hearted. The black cat has a happy ending, but not being able to help Emmie really sucked. Maybe it was meant to suck though, because Emmie is the reason why I show absolutely no quarter to any Magister I meet.

Poor Peeper though. Why did he have to kill all of the other chickens?

While I think the OP's reaction was pretty strong they are legitimate complaints about some of the quests feeling unfinished when it comes to animals. Might be a side effect of pet pal requirements leading to these quests not getting the same polish as other side quests.
Though I think something was missed in the discussion in comparison to OS 1 - in my opinion the sanctuary where you find dozens of slaughtered animals who were pretty much defenseless against the immaculates was far worse than anything I've found in OS 2 so far. The problem at that point was there wasn't a good enough motivation for killing them by the immaculates to justify letting it happen, at least to that degree. It's confirmed later on that the Immaculates kill animals for their bloodstones but this should have been established before getting into that sanctuary. Then Icara doesn't mention it at all after that, and you can't tell her about it either.
I think the solution for any writing problems would be to give the player the dialogue choice to show they care for the animals that are suffering and have options available to you that are plausible. That sanctuary situation could have been handled better if, as mentioned, the motivation for killing them was established and Icara shows some reaction to the news, and also able to save that family of wolves or at least a few other animals aside from one boar. For the bear cub in OS 2, just giving the option to respond to the cub's reaction, like trying to convince it to live on its own, or putting out of its misery, as options. Emmie would have been very simple, give the option for them to meet and if Emmie is too far gone and kills Buddy that would feel finished. That cat - yeah, just have the dialogue option to tell it what happened to its owner.
In summary, give as much attention to pet pal related side quests as other side quests do.